The Fourteenth Amendment's birthright citizenship clause doesn't apply to children of illegal immigrants
Source: "Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump's birthright citizenship order | Fox News." April 2, 2026. www.foxnews.com
The Gist
The author argues that when the Constitution says people born here must be 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S. to get citizenship, it means they can't have loyalty to any other country. Since illegal immigrants and tourists still owe allegiance to their home countries, their children shouldn't automatically become American citizens.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court should uphold Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship because the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to children of illegal immigrants or temporary visitors
Premises
- The phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in the Fourteenth Amendment requires complete allegiance to the United States, not just being subject to U.S. laws while present
- United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) only addressed children of legal permanent residents, not illegal immigrants or temporary visitors
- The legal community's understanding of Wong Kim Ark has been 'a mess' according to Justice Gorsuch, with many scholars agreeing it never decided the illegal immigrant question
- Historical evidence from Senator Lyman Trumbull and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 shows the original understanding required exclusive allegiance to the United States
- Birth tourism from countries like China creates a national security threat by allowing foreign influence over American elections
- Granting automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants incentivizes more illegal immigration
Assumptions
- The original understanding of constitutional text should govern modern interpretation
- National sovereignty requires control over citizenship determination
- Birth tourism represents a genuine threat to American democracy
- The Supreme Court should defer to the political branches on citizenship policy when the Constitution is ambiguous